[geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcsY
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:00:37 +1000
1.I was not shouting...the font defaulted .. I'm glad Allen. I run away from
sensitive people when they get rattled. Hurt comes from pride you know.. I
pride myself upon having no feelings of pride. No feelings period.. now down
to work. You sayeth,
......AS for STR and GTR you still don’’t apply GTR or it termonology or
concepts consistently and you are right you "really (dont) know what it
is".......Allen
I havn't used STR and GTR or its termonology in the context of this discussion
at all!
It must be me that cannot write coherently.. Allen you take selections of my
text out of context.. You are missing the theme of my primary objective.. I
try to make single subject simple paragraphs for you. But you read different
meanings into what I say.
I never use the scientific jargon, you call terminology , as regards GTR or STR
. without specifically naming it. I do not believe in them as part of my level
of physics which is the practical application.. Applied Physics..
When I theorise, I always try to make it obvious I am dreaming.. How many
times have I conflicted with Paul by declaring that concensus does not make any
theory TRUTH ?
I said, and I highlight it again/
When I say relativity
Here is what you missed loud and clear..
relativity noun [U] FORMAL
the state of being judged in comparison with other things and not by itself.
At the risk of annoying others on this list with another oupouring of
unnecessary circulatory discourse, I will put short comments into your blues
below...Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 2:20 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
Phil,
1.I was not shouting...the font defaulted to 24 and i wrote those in a hurry
i was busier then i normally am......no spell check or double check of
anything......AS for STR and GTR you still don’’t apply GTR or it termonology
or concepts consistently and you are right you "really know what it is".......
."Then I've heard of special relativity... I don't really know what it is.
but it could be suspect."............
"I have heard of Einsteins general relativity I don't really know what it is.
but it could be suspect. If its this, then I do not support it or ever proclaim
it. Its an unproven theory you see. "
2. Newton did not proclaim that a gyro cannot detect the acceleration in
free fall!?............The theories you say you don’t know what they are (GTR
STR) did that!,
To me its not anybodies theory. Its a practical reality of life. I held a
spinning flywheel in my hand and tested the reactions.
after real world experiments not just Newton’s thought experiments were
actually performed and showed difficulties with understanding of motions in a
HC universe????........... I think it is funny you keep saying things like
"The application of gravity effects every molecule in a given space equally, on
the sprung mass of an accelerometer and the springs as also on the vehichle
containing it. As far as I know, gravity is the only force that can do this".
SO What do You base this on what?!
Common Sense!
A Ball and feather?!..no one is arguing that a ball and feather in a vacuum
chamber will appear to your supper scientific calibrated eye to hit bottom at
the same time.....??? Neither will any HS student who has ever taken a
accelerometer on a roller coaster or elevator ..or even a free fall from a hot
air balloon claim that every molecule in that accelerometer had the
gravitational force to act on every part of it equally such that it showed no
acceleration !?..why?...because although the force of gravity itself is
consistent...the materials that it acts on have different properties......oh
you forgot to take into consideration that different materials transfer "FORCE"
as you point out so cleverly here differntly..
Yep gravity works on protons or electrons equally, be they feathers or lead
balls.. I expect you to know I mean this to the exclusion of all other
extraneous forces. .
"There is no difference, or different types of acceleration Allen. the
definition is all inclusive Acceleration, is change in motion due to an
application of a force or forces. .. full stop". So if force is force then the
difference must be in the materials that must emit that force but also how
that/ any force is transmitted through all the materials...................wait
for it phil...............since there is a interior and a exterior and the
source according to newton is the masses then ......OH MY GOODNESS I THINK WE
JUST HAD AN EPIPHANY!? this is sad... Gravity even if though it is constant &
consistent "force" must still traverse and even pass through various different
materials that have various different properties wrt how they emit/transmits
"forces"..we know that is true cos density affects "force transmision" "in the
lab" .......PHIL, .you know all thoes "gravitons" no I don't know or what
ever it is in MS or "Newton’s universe" that causes and transmits
gravity....oh wait, Newton did not know what gravity was, so he never actually
specified or even address that little issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????
......(that was as shout!)....now, I'll tone it down an octive or two....still
sad.......So ...you mean......"Gravity force" whatever that is may not be the
only variable to how gravity works in the real world?....Yes, that is what
real world not just thought experiments show...........ummmm......... what a
novel idea! I don't get it.
3....If there is no difference in acceleration forces Did I say that? read me
again. taken from mine below.
"There is no difference, or different types of acceleration Allen "
Of course an exploding bomb is a differnt force to magnetism or gravity.
never said differently. But your assumption that I did gives you this false
Idea : "then you certainly cannot claim a gyro cannot detect a acceleration in
free fall in orbit around a body." is not true..Are you being obstropolis. How
many times have I denied saying such a thing. .if the gyro detects a change in
orientation wrt the body in the same direction as the orbit .....ta-da.... then
it must have detected that acceleration (by definition of acceleration Yes!
but have you forgotten we were discussing Pauls accelerometer on springs. and
again I repeat that is an accelerometer, not a flywheel. How many times are you
ignoring my stated statements. This is especially true if the rate of
orientation change wrt the body is identical to the orbital period!? Phil not
only do you keep invoking logical contradictions and inconsistent terminology
of MS while claiming you dont subscribe to it but you insiste on holding me to
the very thing you say you do not accept but use to make all your argument? I
could not follow any reasoning here. Read mine above again.
4. I dont have to mention problems with tides and inertia itself again ..just
dont think i forgot about it.....I just hope you have.. I couldn't stand any
more MS relitivity.
5. "If we could control the movement of a vehicle and its passengers by
gravitation, it could make sudden 20,000mph right angle turns and the
passengers would not even know the turn had been made.. Isaac Asimov. " He
bases this statement on what?!
Knowing Asimov, he no doubt interpreted it according to einsteins theories of
relativity.. but he explained it to us nerds reading the pulp magazine in
simple practical terms that we could work with. ... If the driver accelerates
the car we get thrown back wards in our seat, because of our inertia.. But if
he accelerates both the car and our bodies with an equal force , we will not
notice a thing.. .. and gravity can do that.. I find that perfectly logical
in practise, even in a world without Einstein, especially in a world without
Einstein.
Maybe one day a moment of consistent & "sober" thought ;-) will pass by your
way...when it does don’t just wave at as passes you by ...for heaven sake get
out into the middle of the road highjack it and take all they got!........;-)
LOL
I should be so unlucky! Sorry all,
Phil
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 5:22:05 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Acceleration calcs
No Phil Allen is rattled.. he is shouting.. it doesn't work.. see I turned
the volume down..
"niether Paul nor you have demonstrated in any fasion the differnce between
an acceleration in any direction and a change in oreintaion to any
direction..which by deffintion requires an acceleration to that direction!? The
dishonesty here is with thoes who say..." etc
There is no difference, or different types of acceleration Allen. the
definition is all inclusive Acceleration, is change in motion due to an
application of a force or forces. .. full stop.
Simple vector diagrams of applied forces explain both the direction and
magnitude of change of velocity of the motion of any mass. We were/are
discussing the effect of the application of just one type of force.. gravity.
The application, Allen not the theory of whys or wherefores.. The application
of gravity effects every molecule in a given space equally, on the sprung mass
of an accelerometer and the springs as also on the vehichle containing it. As
far as I know, gravity is the only force that can do this.
If we could control the movement of a vehicle and its passengers by
gravitation, it could make sudden 20,000mph right angle turns and the
passengers would not even know the turn had been made.. Isaac Asimov.
The rest of your post was beyond garbled.
Philip.
Other related posts:
